ST Will Luke Have A Child? If So, Where's Mom?

I don't agree with that at all. All it takes is saying that Luke found this orphan boy who is gifted in the force, and took him in to raise as his own son. It can be dealt with in two or three minutes of exposition.

As opposed to Luke having a biological son, which must involve a mother and almost certainly involves a MAJOR romantic plotline for Luke. Whether or not the woman is still alive, that's a huge backstory to explain, much more convoluted than Luke simply finding an orphan child.

 

if i see the word convoluted one more time, i will lose it.

 

I don't object to a bio-son for Luke, but I'm just not seeing it in the information we have so far about Episode 7. I explained my reasons earlier in this thread.

Lucas is the one who made Skywalker DNA important, yes, but that was a story he wrote back in the 70s. (Yes, Lucas wrote the PT in the 90s, but the basic Skywalker father-son plot was pretty much set in stone back in the 70s.) George Lucas is not the same man now that he was back in the 70s. He is the father of three adopted children. Do you honestly think that has had no effect on how Lucas feels about what it means to be a father? Do you think Lucas would completely ignore 30+ years of intimate life experience and write the exact same story for Luke today that he would have written all those years ago? Because I don't.

The signs we're seeing so far don't point to Luke having a bio-son. The signs we're seeing so far strongly point to John Boyega playing the lead character of a young Jedi. I put those two things together with the knowledge that Lucas has three adopted children (and a black child) and the memory of Lucas saying that Luke was in many ways an autobiographical character for him, and I drew what I think is the most logical conclusion based on all of that.

 

That's because you chose to ignore all the signs

 

^The only "signs" we have seen is the actor listing, which means nothing at this point and many other sits have the names listed differently. Then there is the casting photo that features Boyega sitting next to people announced and presumed to be villians, not near Solos/Skywalkers or even droids. We don't really know anything, you are making assumptions based on whatever particular bias you already have.

 

True to say that Lucas loves his adopted children as much as anyone would ever love their own. If the story is about love, family, and the sacrifices you'd make for them, does it matter if the child is biological or not?

But to play devil's advocate, is this any longer Lucas' story?

What we can all agree to is that there are ENDLESS possibilities with the offspring topic and I'm sure there are some surprises and twists we won't find out until December 2015 (or later if they aren't revealed until Eps 8 or 9).

But I will say this-I am 100% certain that any and every debate we are having here was had by JJ, KK, etc ten fold through the writing process, likely having a great deal to do with the way the movie was cast and why, in some cases, it took so long to finalize certain people (especially Gleeson).

 

It will probably be quite a convoluted romantic plot, but ultimately I don't think we will see the mother - kind of how you don't see Julia Roberts in Oceans 13. Potentially she lives on kashyyk (for protection from imperials) because Yoda had such good relations with the wookiees.

 

Matter of opinion. I think those who are still firmly on the Gleeson-is-Luke's-son train are the ones who are missing the signs. And it's the easiest thing in the world to make vague statements and refer to vague rumors as a way to defend your opinion.

The bottom line is, time will tell. And it's probably going to be a L-O-N-G time before we get a definite answer, one way or the other. So since we likely have a long, long wait ahead of us, it's really not worth getting worked up over or snippy about.

 

It's a fair question. But while I think it's likely that Arndt, JJ, and Kasdan made noteworthy changes to George's story treatment, I still think the basic story is probably Lucas'. But we'll see.

 

Only took 4 replies for someone to mention Mara Jade.

 

It seems to me that a lot of people can't make up their minds as to whether the Skywalker name or the Skywalker bloodline is more important. The way I see it is that if Boyega takes the name Skywalker then he can carry that forward, and if Ridley is Leia's daughter then she can carry the bloodline forward, so either way there's no problem. I rather like the idea that Boyega is set up as the protagonist and carries that role through this film, but in the end Ridley assumes the mantle moving forward into the rest of the trilogy.

 

^^^ Thats the way I see it. Ridley will appear to be the typical Padme/Leia senator-politician-damsel in distress type but evolves into the actual hero's journey type.

And I am not sold on Boyega being the one true hero lead. He could be and that would be fine, but I'm not sold on whether he will be. I think Gleeson has a decent shot at being that person.

 

I think the Skywalker bloodline is more important than the name given Anakin's origins. This doesn't diminish the Skywalker name and this doesn't mean a a valid story can't be told with an adopted Skywalker son. That being said, I think Luke can be a perfectly valid father figure without being an actual father. Remember, he was brought up by his aunt and uncle who weren't his biological aunt and uncle and despite being a bit of a brat at the beginning of ANH, he turned out just fine by the end of ROTJ. So if Luke, at some point between the end of ROTJ and the beginning of Episode VII comes across an orphan who happens to be a Force User, this doesn't mean he has to adopt him as his son. It would be a perfectly valid parallel to take him under his wing as his "nephew".

 

luke wasn't a brat, he was your typical teenager. wanting to go hang out with his friends and go prove himself.

 

Maybe the bloodline/name thing IS the issue. Hypothetically speaking, let's say Luke has an adopted son who bares the Skywalker name. He becomes the target of the new enemy. They feel it's this son who needs to be turned or killed just as was the case with Luke. However, while this person is strong in the Force, they are not the true heir to the Skywalker bloodline. At the end of the movie, Daisyface saves the day and is revealed as being the TRUE heir to the Skywalker clan. Yoda's "there is another" comes true. Nobody on the baddie side expected that the heir would be a girl. She does so out of spite against her parents but is rewarded at the end (instead of the princess awarding the male heroes it's the male heroes awarding and recognizing her).

And we move into the next chapter with Daisycakes as the main target.

 

Boyega could be Luke's biological son, the mother could have been a POC. Another angle for the mother that has come to me is maybe she is dead, and maybe she died because of Luke being a Jedi. That would explain why he (possibly) gave it up and went into exile. It could be played off sort of like Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven.

 

Luke: "There was no mother. I carried him and raised him. I can't explain what happened."

 

It seems to me that it's pretty much Han and Leia fans who would prefer that Luke not have kids. It seems that since their favorite characters likely have at least one child, they're perfectly happy. Do they prefer that Luke not have any kids because then it's more likely that Han and Leia's kid/kids will be the focus of the sequel trilogy? I have seen folks come up with all kinds of really weak reasons why Luke shouldn't have a biological child, but that an adopted one would be fine, even though that would take a lot more explanation than if Luke had a child of his own.

See, I don't mind if Han and Leia' s kid is the big hero, but I really, really want Luke to know the same joy of a family in his life that Han and Leia will get. Plus, as I've said before, I want to be able to follow Luke's offspring into future stories in books and other Star Wars films, just as I know Han and Leia fans want to follow their kids in other SW stories after the sequel trilogy I'd over.

I also think it would be to Disney's advantage to continue the Skywalker name into the future through Luke's biological child. The Skywalker name is iconic, and can sell books, films, and toys. Luke was often on the covers of books because he sells books. I would think his son or daughter would as well.

I haven't noticed many, if any, Luke fans saying that they don't want to see Luke with kids. Hopefully, Han and Leia fans can understand why Luke fans want to have the same thing they want: a son/daughter for their favorite character that they can enjoy in future stories when Luke, Leia, and Han are gone.

 

Yeah, if everybody is on board with adoption, why don't Han and Leia adopt a kid. Maybe one of them can't have kids.